Didn't mean to offend. Your post distinguished between "Pros" and "Rec/Ams". I was wondering what "Rec/Ams" meant---is that all recreational and amateur players? Or just players in the Recreational division (one of the amateur divisions). The former includes 970-rated Advanced players; the latter leaves out a huge portion of the disc golf population.

If the former, you're stating your opinion that holes shouldn't be over 500' for all amateur players. Not just what you like. And you didn't qualify it as "long, boring holes over 500'", as opposed to cool, challenging holes over 500'.

It's valid to say YOU don't like holes over 500', regardless of design. If your opinion is that no holes for amateurs, even Advanced Ams, should be over 500', well, it's still your opinion, but I'd argue that since many of the subject players like such holes, it shouldn't be so absolute.

I believe that courses should cater to all skill levels. I understand the need for longer holes, for the pro and advanced players, and those of lesser skill levels who want to torture/challenge themselves. This can usually be achieved by having multiple sets of tee pads, alt pin placements, and by designing courses for different skill levels. I myself prefer shorter technical courses.

I believe that courses should cater to all skill levels. I understand the need for longer holes, for the pro and advanced players, and those of lesser skill levels who want to torture/challenge themselves. This can usually be achieved by having multiple sets of tee pads, alt pin placements, and by designing courses for different skill levels. I myself prefer shorter technical courses.

IF POSSIBLE, every course should have 1 of "everything" (that's possible). This includes a hole which will "help separate scores" of the big arms from the less than big arms (just as there should be 1 hole which "helps separate" tight-challenged throwers from those who salivate at tunnel shots, etc.